@impeccable/reviews 0.1.17 → 0.1.19

package/dist/playbook/cases/monorepo.md

@@ -1,22 +1,21 @@
 ### When this applies
 
-The state's repository has an `apps` item: the scan proposed several apps, folders that each draw pages of their own, and the rest of the setup is asked only once the apps are answered. The scan proposes them, so while the scan item's `scan` is `running` the item may not be there yet: read the state again before taking the repository for one app. The person is asked once a run, this question, and nothing else about apps: **every run asks it**, however the setup page or an earlier run answered, since a run sets up the apps picked in it; as "The aim" says, it is the one question about apps. These steps come before the playbook's step 3, under the Apps task; steps 3 to 6 then go app by app.
+The state's repository has an `apps` item: the scan proposed several apps, folders that each draw pages of their own, and the rest of the setup is asked only once the apps are answered. The scan proposes them, so while the scan item's `scan` is `running` the item may not be there yet: read the state again before taking the repository for one app. The person is asked once a run, this question, and nothing else about apps: **every run asks it**, however the setup page or an earlier run answered, since a run sets up the apps picked in it; as "The aim" says, it is the one question about apps. These steps come before the playbook's step 3, under the Set up monorepo apps task; steps 3 to 6 then go app by app.
 
 ### Steps
 
 1. **Confirm the proposal** as it stands, while the item's status is `needs-you`: impeccable_write to `apps` with the `confirm` action the item's instructions give. Its answer lists every app of the repository, on and off, with its `key`, `name`, `pathPrefixes` and `enabled`; the one the scan switched on is the repository's default. An item that is `done` or `skipped` was answered before (on the setup page, or by an earlier run): no confirm, and step 2 all the same. Done when it answered `apps`, or the item was answered before.
-2. **Ask which apps this run sets up**, on every run, with impeccable_ask: `id: "apps"`, `kind: "multi"`, and the `prompt` *"Which apps should get Impeccable previews?"*. The tool words the question and lists the state's apps (the repository's own, `main`, only where the Worker kept it as a product of its own), each picked as it is on, or every one after this run's confirm. Mark the Apps task in progress first. Every write and host tool for an app is refused until it is answered. Done when it answered `values`, `named` (the command was started for that one app with `--app`, from its card on the dashboard: the tool showed one confirm screen naming that app instead of the list, and the list all the same when the person asked for other apps there), or a skip, whose `on` lists the apps that are on: the ones this run sets up. After `named`, that app is the one this run sets up: every host read, key, proof, method and check is its own, and no other app is mentioned past that screen.
+2. **Ask which apps this run sets up**, on every run, with impeccable_ask: `id: "apps"`, `kind: "multi"`, and the `prompt` *"Which apps should get Impeccable previews?"*. The tool words the question and lists the state's apps (the repository's own, `main`, only where the Worker kept it as a product of its own), each picked as it is on, or every one after this run's confirm. Mark the Set up monorepo apps task in progress first. Every write and host tool for an app is refused until it is answered. Done when it answered `values`, `named` (the command was started for that one app with `--app`, from its card on the dashboard: the tool showed one confirm screen naming that app instead of the list, and the list all the same when the person asked for other apps there), or a skip, whose `on` lists the apps that are on: the ones this run sets up. After `named`, that app is the one this run sets up: every host read, key, proof, method and check is its own, and no other app is mentioned past that screen.
 3. **Write the picks**, one action a call as the item's instructions give them: `enable` each chosen app that is off, then `disable` each app that is on and was not chosen. The last app that is on cannot be switched off (409), which is why the enables come first. **After `named`**, `enable` that app when it is off, and switch no other off. **After Skip**, write nothing more: the apps that are on stay on. Done when the last answer's `apps` show `enabled` true for every chosen app and false for the rest (after `named`, true for that app), or, after Skip, nothing was written.
 4. **Read the state again** with impeccable_state. Done when the preview item's `apps` names each chosen app's `directory`, `build` and `method` (none yet for an app not set up), and `perApp` its status.
-5. **Set each chosen app up**, one after the other, as the playbook's steps 3 and 4 say for that app alone, `appKey` on every write and check (`preview`, `test-accounts`, `latest-pull-check`, `connection-check`): its method by the case that applies to it (server-previews when its pages need a server, static-site when they do not, a host's case when the host deploys that app as a project of its own, proven on that app's own address: impeccable_hosted_previews, impeccable_netlify_previews and impeccable_cloudflare_previews take its `appKey` and list only the previews of the project or site that builds its folder (impeccable_netlify_connect takes it too, and connects that site), so another app's address, project or key never stands in for it; their `unmatched` says why none can be told, and that app goes as server-previews or static-site says, with the reason under "What is not verified"), and its own sign-in when the scan item's `accessByApp` says it has one, each account question's title naming the app (*"Order desk admin account"*). **The lock in front of each app's previews is that app's own**: when its proof answers a `gate`, preview-protection's steps run for that app, with its `appKey`, before any other app's step (the tools refuse the next app's reads and writes until its key tool was called), and the key goes to that app's own project or site; a key saved for one app says nothing about another's, and the state's `keySaved` speaks for one app at most. Done when every chosen app's method is saved, or its preview skipped as server-previews says, and its sign-in saved or skipped, and no other app got a write, a build or a question.
-6. **The pull requests** as pull-requests says, once for the repository: the setup commit takes the state's one workflow `file` (a job for each chosen static site whose preview Impeccable builds) once every chosen app's method and build settings are saved, or its preview skipped as server-previews says; the test drive adds its page to every chosen app with a preview (an app whose preview was skipped gets none, and goes under "What was skipped, and why"), in that app's own framework and linked from that app's own public page, so one review renders each of them on its own preview; that case's step 3 proves each chosen app with the input that proved it; its step 4 proves the test drive's page on each chosen app's own preview, with that app's key where its lock stands in front; its step 6 checks each chosen app with a preview, with its `appKey`, one call each. Done when pull-requests' steps are done.
+5. **Set each chosen app up**, one after the other, as the playbook's steps 3 and 4 say for that app alone, `appKey` on every write and check (`preview`, `test-accounts`, `latest-pull-check`, `connection-check`): its method by the case that applies to it (server-previews when no host deploys it, a host's case when the host deploys that app as a project of its own, proven on that app's own address: impeccable_hosted_previews, impeccable_netlify_previews and impeccable_cloudflare_previews take its `appKey` and list only the previews of the project or site that builds its folder (impeccable_netlify_connect takes it too, and connects that site), so another app's address, project or key never stands in for it; their `unmatched` says why none can be told, and that app goes as server-previews says, with the reason under "What is not verified"), and its own sign-in when the scan item's `accessByApp` says it has one, each account question's title naming the app (*"Order desk admin account"*). **The lock in front of each app's previews is that app's own**: when its proof answers a `gate`, preview-protection's steps run for that app, with its `appKey`, before any other app's step (the tools refuse the next app's reads and writes until its key tool was called), and the key goes to that app's own project or site; a key saved for one app says nothing about another's, and the state's `keySaved` speaks for one app at most. Done when every chosen app's method is saved, or its preview skipped as server-previews says, and its sign-in saved or skipped, and no other app got a write, a build or a question.
+6. **The pull requests** as pull-requests says, once for the repository: the setup commit takes the state's one workflow `file` once every chosen app's method and build settings are saved, or its preview skipped as server-previews says; the test drive adds its page to every chosen app with a preview (an app whose preview was skipped gets none, and goes under "What was skipped, and why"), in that app's own framework and linked from that app's own public page, so one review renders each of them on its own preview; that case's step 3 builds each chosen app as its host's case says; its step 4 proves the test drive's page on each chosen app's own preview, with that app's key where its lock stands in front; its step 6 checks each chosen app with a preview, with its `appKey`, one call each. Done when pull-requests' steps are done.
    - **A chosen app whose preview was skipped** (server-previews): it stays on, with no method, no job in the workflow and no test drive page. It holds nothing back: the other apps' setup commit, test drive and checks go on as above, and its checkup entry left in `next` counts as done for the playbook's step 5. The report says, on its line and under "What was skipped, and why", that it gets no preview until its host deploys them.
-   - **A host previews some chosen apps and Impeccable builds the others**: a host's case speaks for its own app. The setup commit carries the workflow for the others and the test drive branches from it, and pull-requests' step 4 goes each app's way: the host's app proven on the host's build, the others by the workflow. The repository goes without a workflow and a setup pull request only where a host previews every chosen app.
 7. **Report per app**: under "What was configured, and by whom", one line per app the question offered: on or off and why (picked, unticked, named with `--app`, on already after a skip), its method, its sign-in, what was verified; an app left out is under "What was skipped, and why" as well, with the setup page as where it is turned on. impeccable_report adds a section of its own, "Each app, as this run left it", from what the run saved and proved, and the last screen says "You're all set up" only when every chosen app is: an app whose preview met a lock with no key saved, or got no method, is named there with its one step, so the report's lines say the same. Done when every app is on one line.
 
 ### Reference
 
-- **The folders**: the install runs where the manifest the lockfile belongs to is (`build.installDirectory` in the state: the root of a workspace with one lockfile), the build and the start in the app's own folder (`build.workingDirectory`, the `directory` the preview item's `apps` names). impeccable_verify_preview takes no `appKey`: give each step its `directory` accordingly, and `output.directory` from the checkout's root; the saved `outputDir` is relative to the app's folder (`.` when its files are the pages), since the job uploads from there. Where the check is skipped on this machine (static-site says when), each app's job proves its build on the pull request.
+- **The folders**: the install runs where the manifest the lockfile belongs to is (`build.installDirectory` in the state: the root of a workspace with one lockfile), the build and the start in the app's own folder (`build.workingDirectory`, the `directory` the preview item's `apps` names).
 - **Ask nothing else about apps**: names, a split or a merge are the person's on the setup page. A proposal that looks wrong (a shared package, a missing folder) goes into the report, never into a `split`.
 - **Status lines** name the app (*"Proving the storefront's preview"*), under the playbook's tasks.
 - The checkup's entries for an app read "<repository> (<app>): …", and its `apps` check is answered by step 1.

package/dist/playbook/cases/netlify-previews.md

@@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ It applies as well **before the first pull request**: a site built from this rep
 - **The aim** holds here: the CLI does the work, and the person is asked only what the playbook's aim allows.
 - **Behind a password or Netlify's login** (`gate: "netlify-protection"`): the site password, or Netlify's team login, stands in front of the previews. That is the preview-protection case's, whose steps come before step 2: on the person's yes the password is stored, or the site behind the team login made public.
 - **Deploy Previews off now** (`pullRequestPreviews` in the answer, `enabled: false`, with its `reason`): the site built previews before, and its settings build none now. The aim holds: ask once with impeccable_enable_previews (`host: "netlify"`), after step 1's proof and preview-protection's steps and before the test drive is pushed, so the person sees the lock's question and this one back to back, at most one each. `enabled`: go on. `skipped` or `refused`: push no test drive (pull-requests' "No preview, no test drive"), and say under "What was skipped, and why" that Deploy Previews are off for the site, with the `reason`, and name the `page`; `left` stays empty, since the person was asked in this run. `enabled: 'unknown'`: say so in one line under "What is not verified" and go on.
-- **Another app, or no answer from any of the three**: Netlify's previews do not show this app. Set the preview up as server-previews or static-site says instead, and say under "What is not verified" what the Netlify address answered.
-- **Nothing listed**: Netlify's previews are not on record. With a site of this repository whose Deploy Previews are on, that is the first pull request still to come, above. Else, where the checkout is set up for Netlify, that is the netlify-setup case's; else set the preview up as server-previews or static-site says. An `error` means a read failed, so a preview may exist that is not listed: say so under "What is not verified".
+- **Another app, or no answer from any of the three**: Netlify's previews do not show this app. Set the preview up as server-previews says instead, and say under "What is not verified" what the Netlify address answered.
+- **Nothing listed**: Netlify's previews are not on record. With a site of this repository whose Deploy Previews are on, that is the first pull request still to come, above. Else, where the checkout is set up for Netlify, that is the netlify-setup case's; else set the preview up as server-previews says. An `error` means a read failed, so a preview may exist that is not listed: say so under "What is not verified".
 - **The pull requests**: no setup pull request; the test drive branches from the default branch. Netlify builds a deploy preview only for a pull request, so the test drive opens as a draft, its deploy preview is waited for and the test drive's page proven on it, and then the draft is marked ready: pull-requests' step 4. In place of pull-requests' step 3, build the test drive branch once with the build Netlify runs (`netlify.toml`'s `[build]` `command`, else the package's `build` script), so a page that does not build is never pushed.
 - The evidence is read only: link, deploy and change nothing on Netlify, beyond what impeccable_netlify_password and impeccable_enable_previews do on the person's yes. Netlify does not report its previews as GitHub deployments, so Impeccable finds them by their address pattern: save the pattern the proof answered, and no other.
 - The report names the address that answered with this app under "What we found", and the pattern saved under "What was configured, and by whom". The test drive's own preview, which Netlify builds after the run, goes under "What is not verified".

package/dist/playbook/cases/netlify-setup.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ The checkout is set up for Netlify: a `netlify.toml`, a `.netlify/` folder, or a
 1. **Sign in**, before any other preview work, with impeccable_ask: `kind: "confirm"`, `id: "netlify-setup"`. The tool does the rest: it shows the setup screen once (a person signed in already confirms the setup with that sign-in on it, with no login to run), runs the login in the browser when the Netlify CLI is signed out and offers a retry. Done when it answered `confirmed`.
    - **`cli: "missing"`**: install the CLI with `npm install -g netlify-cli@27.11.2`, exactly so: the run installs it with npm alone, pinned to that version, and refuses another package manager, version or tag; then ask again: the screen shows no second time.
    - **`teams` in the answer** (the person has several Netlify teams): ask once which owns the site, `kind: "single"`, `id: "netlify-team"`, `options` the teams as given (the tool words the rest), and pass the pick to `sites:create` as `--account-slug`.
-   - **Skip**: set the preview up as server-previews or static-site says, and say under "What was skipped, and why" that Netlify was found and the sign-in was skipped. The steps below do not apply.
+   - **Skip**: set the preview up as server-previews says, and say under "What was skipped, and why" that Netlify was found and the sign-in was skipped. The steps below do not apply.
 2. **Link or create the site** (run each Netlify command plain, on its own: a command chained after `sites:create` leaves the site unrecorded): `netlify link --git-remote-url <the GitHub origin>` links a site Netlify already builds from this repository; when it finds none, `netlify sites:create --name <name>` creates one in the person's team and links this folder. Name it after the repository: lowercase letters, digits and hyphens, at most 40 characters; a name Netlify says is taken gets `-2`. Done when `netlify status` names the linked project.
    - **A site already built from this repository** (impeccable_netlify_previews named it in `sites`; on a repository with several apps, read with the app's `appKey`): link nothing, since `netlify link` asks in a terminal this run does not have when several sites are built from the repository. Step 3 finds that site by itself.
 3. **Connect the repository** with impeccable_netlify_connect (with the app's `appKey` on a repository with several apps): it connects the linked site to this repository through Netlify's GitHub app, so pull requests build deploy previews, when that site is the one this run created or one built from this repository already (a site built from another repository, or one the run did not create, is left as it is, with the reason), and asks the person for the app's access when Netlify cannot read the repository. Give `command` and `publish` only where no `netlify.toml` sets the build. Done when it answered `connected: true`; a site `netlify link` found is connected already, and it says so. **Deploy Previews off** on that site (`pullRequestPreviews` in its answer, or in impeccable_netlify_previews', `enabled: false`): the aim holds, so ask once with impeccable_enable_previews (`host: "netlify"`) before step 4, and never a second time. `enabled`: step 4. `skipped` or `refused`: the setup ends here, as "A step fails before the test drive is pushed" says, with the `reason` and the `page` in the report, and `left` empty, since the person was asked in this run.
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ The checkout is set up for Netlify: a `netlify.toml`, a `.netlify/` folder, or a
 
 - **The live app**: a site created here has none yet, so the before stays unset, which the report says (live-app-address).
 - **The aim** holds here: the CLI does the work, and the person is asked only what the playbook's aim allows.
-- **A step fails before the test drive is pushed** (the sign-in skipped or not completed, the site not created, the repository not connected): the Netlify setup ends there. Set the preview up as server-previews or static-site says, say under "What was skipped, and why" what stopped it, and put the person's step in `left` when there is one, such as "Give Netlify's GitHub app access to the repository", with the `access` page in the report.
+- **A step fails before the test drive is pushed** (the sign-in skipped or not completed, the site not created, the repository not connected): the Netlify setup ends there. Set the preview up as server-previews says, say under "What was skipped, and why" what stopped it, and put the person's step in `left` when there is one, such as "Give Netlify's GitHub app access to the repository", with the `access` page in the report.
 - **No preview for the draft**: save no method, set up no other preview, and leave the draft as it is, unrecorded, as pull-requests' "No preview, no test drive" says; the site and the connection stay, and the report names them.
   - **The build failed** (`state` is `error` or `failure`): say so under "What is not verified", with the command that builds this linked checkout as Netlify does and prints why, for the person to run: `netlify deploy --build --context deploy-preview`. It never runs here, since it builds with their Netlify sign-in.
   - **No deploy preview within five minutes**: the wait's own screen opens the site's deploy settings, where Deploy Previews are turned on, and waits again on the person's yes (a site whose settings said they were off was asked about in step 3, so this wait is for a build, not a setting). When they skip it, or none came after its retries, say under "What is not verified" that Netlify built no deploy preview here, and that Deploy Previews may be off in the site's settings.

package/dist/playbook/cases/preview-protection.md

@@ -1,25 +1,26 @@
 ### When this applies
 
-impeccable_prove_preview answered a `gate`: the host's own lock stands in front of a preview the host made, and a visitor gets its login or its password page. Three locks have a way in for a tool, each with a tool of its own that works as the person in the command's own process, so no key ever reaches you: Vercel's Deployment Protection (`gate: "vercel-protection"`: Vercel Authentication, or Password Protection, which shows the same gate), whose way in is a bypass secret of the project, sent in a header, which every plan has; Netlify's site password (`gate: "netlify-protection"`), sent as basic credentials in the Authorization header; and Cloudflare Access in front of a Pages preview (`gate: "cloudflare-access"`), whose way in is a service token that a Service Auth policy of the Access application allows, sent in two headers. Netlify's team login, which the same gate answers for, has none, so the tool makes the site public on the person's yes. A project the Vercel CLI creates starts protected, so vercel-setup's new project ends here as well, and so does netlify-setup's new site on a team that keeps new sites private: these steps come between the proof and the save of the method, in vercel-previews', netlify-previews' or cloudflare-previews' step 2 or vercel-setup's or netlify-setup's step 5, before the test drive's pull request opens (on Netlify, before its draft is marked ready), and end with the preview opened.
+impeccable_prove_preview answered a `gate`: the host's own lock stands in front of a preview the host made, and a visitor gets its login or its password page. Three locks have a way in for a tool, each with a tool of its own that works as the person in the command's own process, so no key ever reaches you: Vercel's Deployment Protection (`gate: "vercel-protection"`: Vercel Authentication, or Password Protection, which shows the same gate), whose way in is a bypass secret of the project, sent in a header, which every plan has; Netlify's site password (`gate: "netlify-protection"`), which reviews type into Netlify's own password form on that site's previews alone, for the session it gives, as a visitor does (no header carries it, so a Netlify site has no bypass key); and Cloudflare Access in front of a Pages preview (`gate: "cloudflare-access"`), whose way in is a service token that a Service Auth policy of the Access application allows, sent in two headers. Netlify's team login, which the same gate answers for, has none, so the tool makes the site public on the person's yes. A project the Vercel CLI creates starts protected, so vercel-setup's new project ends here as well, and so does netlify-setup's new site on a team that keeps new sites private: these steps come between the proof and the save of the method, in vercel-previews', netlify-previews' or cloudflare-previews' step 2 or vercel-setup's or netlify-setup's step 5, before the test drive's pull request opens (on Netlify, before its draft is marked ready), and end with the preview opened.
 
 ### Steps
 
-1. **Get the key in place** (the Preview method task): impeccable_vercel_bypass for Vercel's login, under the status line *"Getting past Vercel's login"*; impeccable_netlify_password for Netlify's lock, under *"Getting past Netlify's password"*; impeccable_cloudflare_access for Cloudflare Access, under *"Getting past Cloudflare Access"*. The tool does the rest: it finds Vercel's project with or without a `.vercel/` link (no `vercel link` is needed, and the tool signs the Vercel CLI in where it is signed out), then the project's secret labelled "Impeccable reviews", or reads what Netlify's settings say stands in front of the site; shows one screen asking to create the secret, to store the site password Netlify gives back, to make a site behind Netlify's team login public (signing the Netlify CLI in, in the browser, on that yes where it is signed out; where Netlify refuses, it opens Netlify's Visitor access page and asks the person to try again once they changed it there), or to create a service token (then Cloudflare's sign-in in the browser where cf here lacks it, and it creates the token as the person and allows it in the Access application's policy; a screen takes a Cloudflare API token only where that sign-in cannot), or, when it cannot make or read one, one screen taking a pasted one (Vercel's with the page where it is made opened); opens the preview with it; and saves it for reviews. The key never comes back to you. Done when it answered `status`:
+1. **Get the key in place** (the Preview method task): impeccable_vercel_bypass for Vercel's login, under the status line *"Getting past Vercel's login"*; impeccable_netlify_password for Netlify's lock, under *"Getting past Netlify's password"*; impeccable_cloudflare_access for Cloudflare Access, under *"Getting past Cloudflare Access"*. The tool does the rest: it finds Vercel's project with or without a `.vercel/` link (no `vercel link` is needed, and the tool signs the Vercel CLI in where it is signed out), then the project's secret labelled "Impeccable reviews", or reads what Netlify's settings say stands in front of the site; shows one screen asking to create the secret, to store the site password Netlify gives back, to make a site behind Netlify's team login public (signing the Netlify CLI in, in the browser, on that yes where it is signed out; where Netlify refuses, it opens Netlify's Visitor access page and asks the person to try again once they changed it there), or to create a service token (naming the Access application in front of the preview, its Cloudflare account and the app, once cf signed in here found it; none found, nothing is asked; then Cloudflare's sign-in in the browser where cf here lacks it, and it creates the token as the person and allows it in the Access application's policy; a screen takes a Cloudflare API token only where that sign-in cannot), or, when it cannot make or read one, one screen taking a pasted one (Vercel's with the page where it is made opened); opens the preview with it; and saves it for reviews. The key never comes back to you. Done when it answered `status`:
    - `saved`: the preview is proven (`proven: true`); `secret`, `password` or `token` says whether it was created, existing or typed, and `project`, `site` or `application` which one holds or allows it; Cloudflare's `pattern` is the address pattern to save with the method, and `apiToken` says a Cloudflare API token the person made created the token. Step 2.
    - `opened` (Netlify): the site is public now and the preview proven (`proven: true`); `madePublic` says whether the run or the person made it public, and `site` which site. Step 2.
    - `login` (Netlify): Netlify kept its team login in front through the retries; `reason` says so. Step 3.
    - Any answer with `madePublic` but `opened`: the run made the Netlify site public and it stays so, though the preview did not open; the report names that change as the bullet below says, whatever step comes next.
-   - `refused` with `protection: "none"` (Netlify: the site's settings show neither a password nor the team login, or the site is public now, `madePublic` saying who made it so, and the page past the login is not the app's), or on Vercel whose `reason` says the settings show no Deployment Protection: the page you proved is the app's own sign-in or another page, however it is worded, and the previews are open. Prove a page a visitor opens without signing in, as vercel-previews' or netlify-previews' step 1 says, and on `proven: true` go on with that case's step 2, the save, calling this tool no more: there is no lock to get past. No such page proven: the host's previews do not show this app to a visitor, so go on as that case's "Another app, or no answer" says (set the preview up as server-previews or static-site says, and say under "What is not verified" what the address answered), never step 3, whose lock the settings show is not there.
-   - Any other `refused` on Netlify whose `reason` says to prove or try a page a visitor opens, or that the page asks for the app's own sign-in past the lock: the site password (Netlify's own, or the one typed) got past the lock to the app's own sign-in on the page you proved, or opened neither the header nor Netlify's form, or Netlify did not answer. Prove a page a visitor opens without signing in, as netlify-previews' step 1 says, and call the tool again; the consent is not asked a second time. Refused again, step 3.
+   - `refused` with `protection: "none"` (Netlify: the site's settings show neither a password nor the team login, or the site is public now, `madePublic` saying who made it so, and the page past the login is not the app's), or on Vercel whose `reason` says the settings show no Deployment Protection: the page you proved is the app's own sign-in or another page, however it is worded, and the previews are open. Prove a page a visitor opens without signing in, as vercel-previews' or netlify-previews' step 1 says, and on `proven: true` go on with that case's step 2, the save, calling this tool no more: there is no lock to get past. No such page proven: the host's previews do not show this app to a visitor, so go on as that case's "Another app, or no answer" says (set the preview up as server-previews says, and say under "What is not verified" what the address answered), never step 3, whose lock the settings show is not there.
+   - Any other `refused` on Netlify whose `reason` says to prove or try a page a visitor opens, or that the page asks for the app's own sign-in past the lock: the site password (Netlify's own, or the one typed) got past the lock to the app's own sign-in on the page you proved, or Netlify's form did not take it, or Netlify did not answer. Prove a page a visitor opens without signing in, as netlify-previews' step 1 says, and call the tool again; the consent is not asked a second time. Refused again, step 3.
    - Any other `skipped` or `refused`: nothing was saved; `reason` says what stopped it. Step 3.
-   - `save-failed`: the setup API did not take it all; `reason` says how far it got. Call the tool once more; when it fails again, step 3, with "Save the Vercel bypass secret on the setup page", "Save the Netlify site password on the setup page" or "Save the Cloudflare service token on the setup page" in `left`.
+   - `save-failed`: the setup API did not take it all; `reason` says how far it got. Call the tool once more; when it fails again, step 3, with "Save the Vercel bypass secret on the setup page", "Type the Netlify site password in the app's Settings, under "A way past your host's lock"" or "Save the Cloudflare service token on the setup page" in `left`.
 2. **Check it from Impeccable's side**: impeccable_write to `connection-check` with `{"appKey": "main"}` (on a repository with several apps, the app's own key: the tool saved the key for that app), and report what it answered. Then go on with the case that sent you here: the proof stands, so save the method as vercel-previews', netlify-previews' or cloudflare-previews' step 2 says, Cloudflare's with the tool's `pattern`. Done when the method is saved.
-3. **When nothing was saved**, save no method and set up no other preview, whatever the checkup's `next` says, and open no test drive (pull-requests' "No preview, no test drive"). Say under "What is not verified" that the previews are behind the host's lock, with the tool's `reason`, and name the settings page where the person makes the key, or makes the Netlify site public (the report's bullet below); put the person's one step in `left`, the settings action alone and never running the setup again (for Netlify's team login, none: the person was asked in this run, so `left` stays empty and the report names the Visitor access page); end the report's "Not part of this setup" line with the lock the tool met: "Vercel's Deployment Protection in front of the previews", "Netlify's password in front of the previews", "Netlify's team login in front of the previews", or "Cloudflare Access in front of the previews". Done when the report says so.
+3. **When nothing was saved**, save no method and set up no other preview, whatever the checkup's `next` says, and open no test drive (pull-requests' "No preview, no test drive"). Say under "What is not verified" that the previews are behind the host's lock, with the tool's `reason`, and name the settings page where the person makes the key, or makes the Netlify site public (the report's bullet below); put the person's one step in `left`, the settings action alone and never running the setup again (for Netlify's site password: "Type the Netlify site password in the app's Settings, under "A way past your host's lock"", and, with the draft test drive open, "Then mark draft #<n> ready", never a bypass key, which Netlify has none of; for Netlify's team login, none: the person was asked in this run, so `left` stays empty and the report names the Visitor access page); end the report's "Not part of this setup" line with the lock the tool met: "Vercel's Deployment Protection in front of the previews", "Netlify's password in front of the previews", "Netlify's team login in front of the previews", or "Cloudflare Access in front of the previews". Done when the report says so.
 
 ### Reference
 
+- **Before the test drive's push, on Vercel** (pull-requests' step 4): impeccable_vercel_bypass with `beforePush: true`, and the app's `appKey` on a repository with several apps, reads the project's settings and, where Vercel's login will stand in front of the test drive's preview, asks the person now, on a screen naming the project and the app. `protected: false`, or `protected: true` with `consent` `given` or `not-needed`, or `protected: "unknown"`: push. Once the proof meets the gate, step 1 runs as written, and the yes is not asked again. `skipped`: push and open no test drive, and end as step 3 says, with the tool's `reason`.
 - **The report** names, under "What was configured, and by whom", the Vercel project that holds the secret named "Impeccable reviews" (`project`), whether this run created it, found it there or the person typed it, and where it is revoked: the project's Settings → Deployment Protection → Protection Bypass for Automation; or the Netlify site (`site`) whose password is stored, whether this run read it from the site or the person typed it, and where it is changed: the site's Project configuration → General → Visitor access; or, with `opened`, the Netlify site made public, by this run on the person's yes or by the person on Netlify's page (`madePublic`), so anyone with its address opens it, and where it is made private again: the same Visitor access; or the service token named "Impeccable reviews", whether this run created it or the person typed it, the Access application whose policy allows it (`application`), when a created one runs out (`expires`), and where it is revoked: Zero Trust → Access controls → Service credentials → Service Tokens; with `apiToken`, the Cloudflare API token the person made for the run is theirs to delete (dash.cloudflare.com/profile/api-tokens). Revoking, regenerating or changing it stops reviews until a new one is saved on the setup page.
-- **The tool does the writes**: the key as Impeccable's credential for the lock, and the setting that sends it in the host's header (`x-vercel-protection-bypass`, `Authorization`, or `CF-Access-Client-Id` and `CF-Access-Client-Secret`), both through the setup API, so impeccable_write refuses those two. The state's `preview-protection` item words the same calls, and shows `keySaved` once they are done.
+- **The tool does the writes**: the key as Impeccable's credential for the lock, and the setting that sends it (Vercel's `x-vercel-protection-bypass` header, Netlify's password form, or Cloudflare's `CF-Access-Client-Id` and `CF-Access-Client-Secret` headers), both through the setup API, so impeccable_write refuses those two. The state's `preview-protection` item words the same calls, and shows `keySaved` once they are done.
 - **A key saved before** (the item shows `keySaved` and a `check` that `passed`): the lock was handled by an earlier run or the person. Run step 2's check and go on; call the tool only when that check fails. On a repository with several apps, the item's `keySaved` speaks for one app at most: an app whose own proof answered a `gate` gets step 1 with its `appKey`, whatever another app's key did, and its step 2 check is its own.
 - **The key is never yours**: it goes from the command's own process to the host and to Impeccable, and into no message, status line, file, command or report. `vercel project protection`, `vercel api`, `vercel curl` and `netlify api` print it, and the fence refuses them.
 - **The app's own sign-in** is another card: a preview opened past the lock proves nothing about it.

package/dist/playbook/cases/pull-requests.md

@@ -5,12 +5,11 @@ Every run, once the settings are saved. The person merges the setup pull request
 ### Steps
 
 1. **The setup commit**, when the repository needs a change to keep previews working: the workflow and any fix the build needed, nothing else. With the workflow current on the default branch and no fix, there is none. Check access as workflow-as-person says, branch `impeccable/setup` from `origin/<defaultBranch>`, and bring in the workflow and commit as that case says. Push it in step 7, after the test drive. Done when that case's steps are done.
-2. **The test drive page**, always. The test drive shows the person a whole review: pages to capture, a finding for each measure, and a new page, which is what starts the review's visitor sessions. Branch `impeccable/test-drive` from the setup commit, so it carries the same workflow and its preview runs from its own head (from the default branch when there is no setup commit). Add one small, self-contained page in the repository's own framework, such as `/impeccable-test-drive`: a file where the routing finds pages, plus its styles, with a heading, a paragraph and a few elements in the app's own words (so the review judges it as one of the app's pages), and the flaws below. Link it from a page **a visitor opens without signing in**, the landing page when it is one, and keep the new page open without signing in too: no guard, on the server or in the browser, sends it to the sign-in. Done when the new page carries every flaw below with its comment, and the page you picked links to it.
-3. **Prove both pages** with impeccable_verify_preview, for a preview Impeccable builds itself (static-site): the input that proved the preview, with both pages in `entries`. A host's preview (vercel-previews, vercel-setup, netlify-previews, netlify-setup) is proven on the host's own build in step 4 instead; its case says how the branch is built here first. Done when it answers `verified: true`, or the preview is a host's, or the check is skipped on this machine (its answer says it has no sandbox for it): then the workflow's job proves both pages on the pull request, under "What is not verified".
-4. **Push the test drive and prove its preview**: a host whose evidence said `pullRequestPreviews.enabled: false` is asked first, once, as its case says (impeccable_enable_previews; skipped or refused, push nothing: "No preview, no test drive" below); then commit the new page **and** the page that links to it, each staged by name, `git push -u origin impeccable/test-drive`, then the way its preview comes:
+2. **The test drive page**, always. The test drive shows the person a whole review: pages to capture, a finding for each measure, and a new page, which is what starts the review's visitor sessions. Branch `impeccable/test-drive` from the setup commit, so it carries the same workflow and its preview runs from its own head (from the default branch when there is no setup commit). Add one small, self-contained page in the repository's own framework, such as `/impeccable-test-drive`: a file where the routing finds pages, plus its styles, with a heading, a paragraph and a few elements in the app's own words (so the review judges it as one of the app's pages), and the flaws below. Every word a visitor sees, the page's title, heading and copy and the link to it, reads as a plausible real page of the site, such as a short feature or about page in the product's voice: none says it is a test, a demo or a test drive, names Impeccable or a review, or calls its content placeholder or not real, since a visitor who reads that marks the page down. The flaws' comments stay in the code, never on the page. Link it from a page **a visitor opens without signing in**, the landing page when it is one, and keep the new page open without signing in too: no guard, on the server or in the browser, sends it to the sign-in. Done when the new page carries every flaw below with its comment, and the page you picked links to it.
+3. **Build the test drive branch here**, as the host's case says in place of this step (vercel-previews, netlify-previews, cloudflare-previews), so a page that does not build is never pushed; its preview is proven on the host's own build in step 4. Done when the build passed.
+4. **Push the test drive and prove its preview**: a host whose evidence said `pullRequestPreviews.enabled: false` is asked first, once, as its case says (impeccable_enable_previews; skipped or refused, push nothing: "No preview, no test drive" below); on Vercel, impeccable_vercel_bypass with `beforePush: true` (and each app's `appKey`, one call per app) asks for the bypass secret first where Vercel's login will stand in front of the preview, as preview-protection's "Before the test drive's push" says (`skipped`, push nothing); then commit the new page **and** the page that links to it, each staged by name, `git push -u origin impeccable/test-drive`, then the way its preview comes:
    - **Vercel** (vercel-previews, vercel-setup) builds every push: impeccable_hosted_previews with `branch: "impeccable/test-drive"` waits up to five minutes for its deployment of the pushed head, under a status line with its timer. Prove the test drive's page on that address with impeccable_prove_preview (past Vercel's login as preview-protection says), and save the method as the case says. Then step 5.
    - **Netlify** (netlify-previews, netlify-setup) builds a deploy preview only for a pull request: open the test drive now as a **draft**, step 5's `gh pr create` with `--draft`, which Impeccable leaves unreviewed. impeccable_netlify_previews with `pull` the number it printed waits up to five minutes for the deploy preview, under a status line with its timer. Prove the test drive's page on it, save the method as the case says, then `gh pr ready impeccable/test-drive --repo <owner>/<repo>` marks it ready, which starts the review. Then step 5's recording.
-   - **Impeccable's own preview** (static-site): the workflow in the branch builds it on the pull request, and Impeccable's review holds up to eight minutes for that job before it renders, so step 3's proof and the workflow in the branch (from the setup commit) are all this step takes. Then step 5.
 
    A host's wait that ran out shows its own screen, which opens the host's page where its builds are turned on and waits again on the person's yes. Done when the test drive's page is proven on its preview, and a host's method saved; when nothing proved it, the reference below says how the run goes on.
 5. **Open the test drive and record it**: `gh pr create --repo <owner>/<repo> --head impeccable/test-drive --base <defaultBranch>` with the title "Impeccable test drive (safe to close)" and a body that starts "This pull request only shows Impeccable reviewing a change. Close it when you are done; nothing here needs to be merged." and then names the pages its diff holds, no more, and lists the flaws planted for the review to find, one line each (a Netlify draft opened this way in step 4, and was marked ready there). Record it right away with impeccable_test_pr, so the web page follows its review; it refuses a draft, and a branch that changes no existing page. Done when impeccable_test_pr answered "Recorded".
@@ -27,5 +26,5 @@ Every run, once the settings are saved. The person merges the setup pull request
   - **A layout transition**: `transition: width 0.3s`, naming the layout property.
   - **Body text at the viewport edge**: a paragraph of more than 40 characters in the main content, without a background, flush with the sides of the viewport.
 - **No preview, no test drive**: when step 4 ends with the preview unproven (the host's build failed or none came within the five minutes, the host's login stayed in front, step 3 failed), open no test drive: mark the Test drive task failed, say under "What is not verified" what was missing and what the person can do, and put their step in `left` (on Cloudflare, cloudflare-previews' "No pull-request previews" names the cause and the page; a step the person was asked about in this run goes in the report, not in `left`). The setup pull request still opens in step 7 when there is a setup commit. A Netlify draft stays open, unrecorded: name it in the report. Put "Mark the test drive #N ready once Netlify builds its preview" in `left` only where Netlify built no preview; where it built one and the lock stayed in front, preview-protection's step 3 says what the report says instead.
-- **A single-page app**, whose routes live in the browser: the new page is a self-contained HTML file in the folder the build copies as it is (`public/` in Vite), so the output holds it for `entries` and the review counts it as a page added.
+- **A single-page app**, whose routes live in the browser: the new page is a self-contained HTML file in the folder the build copies as it is (`public/` in Vite), so the build's output holds it and the review counts it as a page added.
 - **A branch name an earlier run took** (checkout or push says so): use `-2`, then `-3`, and name the earlier pull request in the report so the person can close it.

package/dist/playbook/cases/server-previews.md

@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
 ### When this applies
 
-The pages need a server from this repository (SSR, API routes, or a backend the front end calls; a front end whose bundle builds on its own still needs its backend here), and no host's previews show them: no host case applied, or one ended without a preview. Impeccable no longer runs a server in CI for a new setup, so such pages are previewed only by their host's pull request previews. These steps replace the playbook's step 3.
+No host's previews show the pages: no host case applied, or one ended without a preview. Impeccable no longer runs a server or builds a static site in CI for a new setup, so the pages are previewed only by their host's pull request previews. These steps replace the playbook's step 3. Pages that need no server from this repository (plain HTML, or a build that writes a complete static site; an external API they call does not change that) take no question: step 3 applies to them straight away.
 
 ### Steps
 
-1. **Ask where the previews come from**, once, with impeccable_ask: `id: "preview-host"`, `kind: "single"`, `title` *"Pull request previews"*, `prompt` *"Which host should deploy a preview of each pull request?"*, `hint` *"Impeccable reviews this app on its host's previews, and no longer runs its server itself."*, and `options` Vercel (`vercel`) and Netlify (`netlify`). Done when it answered a value, or a skip.
+1. **Ask where the previews come from**, when the pages need a server from this repository (SSR, API routes, or a backend the front end calls; a front end whose bundle builds on its own still needs its backend here), once, with impeccable_ask: `id: "preview-host"`, `kind: "single"`, `title` *"Pull request previews"*, `prompt` *"Which host should deploy a preview of each pull request?"*, `hint` *"Impeccable reviews this app on its host's previews, and no longer runs its server itself."*, and `options` Vercel (`vercel`) and Netlify (`netlify`). Done when it answered a value, or a skip.
    - **Several apps**: ask once for each app this case applies to, the title naming the app (*"Order desk previews"*).
    - **Asked already for this app in this run**, or a host's setup for it ended without a preview (the sign-in skipped, a step failed): ask nothing, and go on as after a skip.
 2. **Set the host up**: on `vercel`, as the vercel-setup case says, and on `netlify`, as the netlify-setup case says. The pick stands in for that case's "When this applies": its steps run whatever the checkout holds for the host, and even where the host already deploys previews that showed another app or did not answer, since the test drive's own preview, proven on that host, decides. Done when that case's steps are done.
-3. **After a skip**: no preview, no test drive. Save no method and write no workflow for these pages, and open no test drive, as pull-requests' "No preview, no test drive" says. Mark the Preview method and Test drive tasks failed, and say under "What was skipped, and why" that the pages need a server and no host deploys previews of them, naming Vercel, Netlify and Cloudflare as the hosts whose pull request previews Impeccable reviews. The checkup's entry for this preview then stays in `next`, which counts as done for the playbook's step 5. With several apps this holds for the skipped app alone: the other chosen apps' previews and the test drive go on as monorepo says, and the tasks fail only where no app has a preview. Done when the report says so.
+3. **After a skip, or for pages that need no server**: no preview, no test drive. Save no method and write no workflow for these pages, and open no test drive, as pull-requests' "No preview, no test drive" says. Mark the Preview method and Test drive tasks failed, and say under "What was skipped, and why" that no host deploys previews of the pages (and that they need a server, where they do), naming Vercel, Netlify and Cloudflare as the hosts whose pull request previews Impeccable reviews. The checkup's entry for this preview then stays in `next`, which counts as done for the playbook's step 5. With several apps this holds for that app alone: the other chosen apps' previews and the test drive go on as monorepo says, and the tasks fail only where no app has a preview. Done when the report says so.
 
 ### Reference
 

package/dist/playbook/cases/vercel-previews.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 Vercel deploys previews of the pull requests: impeccable_hosted_previews lists a successful Preview deployment that Vercel made (`vercel: true`) of a pull request, with its address. The checkout often shows it too (`vercel.json`, `.vercel/project.json`, a `vercel` dependency), but GitHub's record decides. Vercel builds and serves every preview, so these steps replace the playbook's step 3, and the repository needs no workflow and no setup pull request.
 
-It applies as well **before the first pull request**: Vercel deploys the repository already (impeccable_hosted_previews lists deployments Vercel made, production ones or of pushes, and none of a pull request; on a repository with several apps, those of the project that builds the app, named in `project`), so its previews start with the test drive's push. Then there is nothing to prove in step 1 yet: impeccable_ask with `vercel-setup` is refused, since there is no sign-in, project or connection to make; go on to pull-requests' step 4, which pushes the test drive, waits for Vercel's deployment of the pushed branch (impeccable_hosted_previews with `branch`, and the app's `appKey`), proves the test drive's page there, past Vercel's login as preview-protection says, and then step 2 saves the method.
+It applies as well **before the first pull request**: Vercel deploys the repository already (impeccable_hosted_previews lists deployments Vercel made, production ones or of pushes, and none of a pull request; on a repository with several apps, those of the project that builds the app, named in `project`), so its previews start with the test drive's push. Then there is nothing to prove in step 1 yet: impeccable_ask with `vercel-setup` is refused, since there is no sign-in, project or connection to make; go on to pull-requests' step 4, which asks for Vercel's bypass secret where the project's previews are protected, pushes the test drive, waits for Vercel's deployment of the pushed branch (impeccable_hosted_previews with `branch`, and the app's `appKey`), proves the test drive's page there, past Vercel's login as preview-protection says, and then step 2 saves the method.
 
 ### Steps
 
@@ -14,8 +14,8 @@ It applies as well **before the first pull request**: Vercel deploys the reposit
 - **The live app**: with the checkout linked to the project (`.vercel/project.json`) and a production deployment of it on GitHub's record, the evidence answers the project's own domain as `production`; live-app-address says how it becomes the before, in step 2's write. Unlinked, GitHub's record names no address of it that is open.
 - **The aim** holds here: the CLI does the work, and the person is asked only what the playbook's aim allows.
 - **Behind Vercel's login** (`gate: "vercel-protection"`): Deployment Protection stands in front of the previews. Get past it as preview-protection says, which proves the preview, and go on with step 2; when nothing got past it, that case says how the run ends.
-- **`pullRequestPreviews` in impeccable_hosted_previews' answer**: what vercel.json and the linked project say of the test drive's branch, read with the evidence and never changed by the run, since the setting is the repository's own or has no command (impeccable_enable_previews takes no Vercel). `enabled: false` (`git.deploymentEnabled` in vercel.json turns the branch off, or Vercel records no deployments on GitHub, where Impeccable finds its previews): push no test drive on Vercel. Set the preview up as server-previews or static-site says, and say in one line under "What was skipped, and why" that Vercel builds no preview of the pull requests, with the `reason`, and the exact change for the person: the vercel.json rule to lift, or Vercel GitHub deployments under the project's Settings → Git. `enabled: 'unknown'` (an Ignored Build Step decides commit by commit, or the CLI could not read the project): go on, and say so in one line under "What is not verified".
-- **Another app, or no answer from any of the three**: Vercel's previews do not show this app. Set the preview up as server-previews or static-site says instead, and say under "What is not verified" what the Vercel address answered.
+- **`pullRequestPreviews` in impeccable_hosted_previews' answer**: what vercel.json and the linked project say of the test drive's branch, read with the evidence and never changed by the run, since the setting is the repository's own or has no command (impeccable_enable_previews takes no Vercel). `enabled: false` (`git.deploymentEnabled` in vercel.json turns the branch off, or Vercel records no deployments on GitHub, where Impeccable finds its previews): push no test drive on Vercel. Set the preview up as server-previews says, and say in one line under "What was skipped, and why" that Vercel builds no preview of the pull requests, with the `reason`, and the exact change for the person: the vercel.json rule to lift, or Vercel GitHub deployments under the project's Settings → Git. `enabled: 'unknown'` (an Ignored Build Step decides commit by commit, or the CLI could not read the project): go on, and say so in one line under "What is not verified".
+- **Another app, or no answer from any of the three**: Vercel's previews do not show this app. Set the preview up as server-previews says instead, and say under "What is not verified" what the Vercel address answered.
 - **The pull requests**: no setup pull request; the test drive branches from the default branch, and Vercel builds its preview from the push, which pull-requests' step 4 waits for and proves the test drive's page on before the pull request opens. In place of pull-requests' step 3, build the test drive branch once with the install and build Vercel runs (`vercel.json`'s `installCommand` and `buildCommand`, else the package's), as plain commands (`pnpm install`, then `pnpm run build`) and not with impeccable_verify_preview, which is for a preview Impeccable starts itself, so a page that does not build is never pushed.
 - The evidence is GitHub's: link, deploy and change nothing on Vercel, and save no address pattern, since Vercel reports each preview's address to GitHub itself.
 - The report names the address that answered with this app under "What we found", and puts the test drive's own preview under "What is not verified".

package/dist/playbook/cases/vercel-setup.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ The checkout is set up for Vercel (`vercel.json`, `.vercel/project.json`, a `ver
    - **`cli: "missing"`**: install the CLI with `npm install -g vercel@62.7.0`, exactly so: the run installs it with npm alone, pinned to that version, and refuses another package manager, version or tag; then ask again: the screen shows no second time.
    - **`teams` in the answer instead of `team`** (several teams, none current): ask once which owns the project, `kind: "single"`, `id: "vercel-team"`, `options` the teams as given (the tool words the rest). The pick is the team.
    - **Neither `team` nor `teams`**: the account has no team, and `vercel link --yes` without `--team` links in the person's own scope.
-   - **Skip**: set the preview up as server-previews or static-site says, and say under "What was skipped, and why" that Vercel was found and the sign-in was skipped. The steps below do not apply.
+   - **Skip**: set the preview up as server-previews says, and say under "What was skipped, and why" that Vercel was found and the sign-in was skipped. The steps below do not apply.
 2. **Create the project, then link it** (run each Vercel command plain, on its own: its answer is short, a pipe to `tail` is refused, and a command chained after it leaves the project unrecorded): `vercel project add <the folder's name> --team <the team>` creates the project in that team, under the name `vercel link` gives a project (the checkout folder's name, lowercase); then `vercel link --yes --team <the team>`, in the checkout's root (never with `--cwd` or after a `cd`), links the folder to the project of that name, which is now the run's. The CLI names no team on its own without a terminal, so the option is given whenever there is a team. Done when the link prints the linked project.
    - **`vercel project add` fails** (the name is in use: the project is the person's, not this run's): run no link; the Vercel setup ends there, and with the checkout linked to no project its CLI stops and the hold on pushes goes. Go on as "A step fails before the test drive is pushed" says, naming the project under "What was skipped, and why". When `.vercel/project.json` was in the checkout before the run, that link is not this run's, and the hold on pushes stays, by design: no test drive, as "No preview for the pushed test drive" says, and the report says under "What was skipped, and why" that the person removes `.vercel/project.json` or links the project themselves and runs the setup again.
 3. **Connect the repository, and lock the project before its first deployment**, with impeccable_vercel_connect: it runs the connection on the linked project, when that project is the one step 2 created or one connected to this repository already, asks the person for Vercel's GitHub app's access when the app cannot reach the repository, and then, on a project with no production deployment, puts Vercel's login in front of every address of the project, its own included. Vercel makes a new project's first deployment Production whatever branch it builds and serves it at the project's own address, and the test drive's push is that first deployment. When Vercel refuses the lock, the tool asks the person on one screen to turn it on in the project's settings and waits for it. Done when it answered `connected: true` with `production: "exists"` or `locked: true`; a project connected by the link already is, and it says so.
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ The checkout is set up for Vercel (`vercel.json`, `.vercel/project.json`, a `ver
 
 - **The live app**: a project created here has none yet, which the report says; one that deploys production already (`production: "exists"`) answers its address as `productionUrl`, and live-app-address says how it becomes the before.
 - **The aim** holds here: the CLI does the work, and the person is asked only what the playbook's aim allows.
-- **A step fails before the test drive is pushed** (the sign-in skipped or not completed, the team skipped, the project not created, the repository not connected, or step 3 answering that the linked project is not this run's: `vercel link` linked one of the person's projects, named like the folder, which is left as it is): the Vercel setup ends there. Set the preview up as server-previews or static-site says, say under "What was skipped, and why" what stopped it, and put the person's step in `left` when there is one, such as "Give Vercel's GitHub app access to the repository", with the `access` page in the report.
+- **A step fails before the test drive is pushed** (the sign-in skipped or not completed, the team skipped, the project not created, the repository not connected, or step 3 answering that the linked project is not this run's: `vercel link` linked one of the person's projects, named like the folder, which is left as it is): the Vercel setup ends there. Set the preview up as server-previews says, say under "What was skipped, and why" what stopped it, and put the person's step in `left` when there is one, such as "Give Vercel's GitHub app access to the repository", with the `access` page in the report.
 - **`pullRequestPreviews` in impeccable_hosted_previews' answer**: what vercel.json and the linked project say of the test drive's branch, read with the evidence and never changed by the run, since the setting is the repository's own or has no command (impeccable_enable_previews takes no Vercel). `enabled: false` (`git.deploymentEnabled` in vercel.json turns the branch off, or Vercel records no deployments on GitHub, where Impeccable finds its previews): the Vercel setup ends before step 4, as "A step fails before the test drive is pushed" says, and say in one line under "What was skipped, and why" that Vercel builds no preview of the pull requests, with the `reason`, and the exact change for the person: the vercel.json rule to lift, or Vercel GitHub deployments under the project's Settings → Git. `enabled: 'unknown'` (an Ignored Build Step decides commit by commit, or the CLI could not read the project): go on, and say so in one line under "What is not verified".
 - **A push before step 3** is refused, since a connected project builds every push: run impeccable_vercel_connect first.
 - **On a repository with several apps**, the project step 2 creates builds the repository's root: impeccable_vercel_connect connects and locks it only where an app this run sets up is the root's, and otherwise answers so, and the Vercel setup ends there for that app, as "A step fails before the test drive is pushed" says.

package/dist/playbook.js

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ export function loadCases(directory = new URL('./playbook/cases/', import.meta.u
 }
 /** The system prompt: the setup, its steps, then the reference and the cases. The instructions JSON carries every write shape and the fence decides what runs; this restates neither. */
 export function playbook(repo) {
-    return `You are Impeccable's setup agent, in a checkout of ${repo.owner}/${repo.name} on the person's own machine. This setup covers one situation: Impeccable previews the repository's web front end, taking the previews its host deploys for pull requests (vercel-previews, netlify-previews, cloudflare-previews, or vercel-setup and netlify-setup, which turn them on) or, for a static site, building it itself through the workflow the setup state generates (\`static-upload\`), and signs in with the app's own username-or-email-and-password accounts when it has a sign-in. You read files and run commands here, save Impeccable's settings with the impeccable_* tools, and open pull requests as the person. The person watches this terminal, and a web page mirrors your tasks and the report.
+    return `You are Impeccable's setup agent, in a checkout of ${repo.owner}/${repo.name} on the person's own machine. This setup covers one situation: Impeccable previews the repository's web front end, taking the previews its host deploys for pull requests (vercel-previews, netlify-previews, cloudflare-previews, or vercel-setup and netlify-setup, which turn them on) and signs in with the app's own username-or-email-and-password accounts when it has a sign-in. You read files and run commands here, save Impeccable's settings with the impeccable_* tools, and open pull requests as the person. The person watches this terminal, and a web page mirrors your tasks and the report.
 
 # The aim
 Set the repository up with whatever the host's CLI can do (Netlify's, Vercel's, Cloudflare's, signed in as the person), through the commands the fence runs and the impeccable_* tools, and find your own way past a roadblock instead of handing it to the person. Ask the fewest questions possible: a sign-in where a CLI is signed out, and a yes before anything in their account changes (*"Make your previews public, so reviews can open them?"*). Set the live app's address as the before yourself where the host or the README names it (live-app-address): the host's own address of the connected project changes nothing of theirs, so it takes no question. **A step for the person is the last resort**, only where no command the fence runs and no tool can do it; a refusal is final, as Commands says.
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Set the repository up with whatever the host's CLI can do (Netlify's, Vercel's,
 
 1. **Read the state.** The setup API's instructions and state came with the first message, trimmed to this setup; impeccable_state reads the state again. Done when you know the preview item's status, \`file\` and \`workflowStanding\`, whether there is a \`signin\` item, whether there is an \`apps\` item (the monorepo case comes first then), and the titles in \`notPartOfThisSetup\`.
 2. **Read the repository**: manifests, the lockfile, scripts, framework config, CI workflows, env examples, the routes, the auth code and the seed. Done when you can name the package manager, the install, build and start commands, whether the pages need a server, how people sign in, and which pages a visitor opens without signing in.
-3. **Set up the preview** as the vercel-previews case says when impeccable_hosted_previews lists Vercel's previews of the pull requests, as the netlify-previews case says when impeccable_netlify_previews lists Netlify's, or a site of this repository with Deploy Previews on (and as preview-protection says when the host's login or password stands in front of either), as the cloudflare-previews case says when impeccable_cloudflare_previews lists Cloudflare Pages', as the vercel-setup case says when the checkout is set up for Vercel and Vercel has never deployed it, as the netlify-setup case says when the checkout is set up for Netlify and it lists none, else as the server-previews case says when the pages need a server, and as the static-site case says when they do not; then the live app's address as the live-app-address case says, in the method's write where it can be. Done when those cases' steps are done.
+3. **Set up the preview** as the vercel-previews case says when impeccable_hosted_previews lists Vercel's previews of the pull requests, as the netlify-previews case says when impeccable_netlify_previews lists Netlify's, or a site of this repository with Deploy Previews on (and as preview-protection says when the host's login or password stands in front of either), as the cloudflare-previews case says when impeccable_cloudflare_previews lists Cloudflare Pages', as the vercel-setup case says when the checkout is set up for Vercel and Vercel has never deployed it, as the netlify-setup case says when the checkout is set up for Netlify and it lists none, else as the server-previews case says; then the live app's address as the live-app-address case says, in the method's write where it can be. Done when those cases' steps are done.
 4. **Set up the sign-in** as the sign-in case says, when the app has its own. Done when that case's steps are done.
 5. **Run impeccable_checkup**, do what \`next\` says, and run it again. Done when \`status\` is complete, or all that is left is in \`forPerson\` or \`waitingFor\`.
 6. **Open the pull requests** as the pull-requests case says. What waits on the person holds neither back. Done when that case's steps are done.
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ Keep secrets out of files, settings and messages: the workflow names a repositor
 ## Voice
 The person reads your [STATUS] lines, task titles and questions, here and on the web page: calm, specific, one line each.
 - **[STATUS] lines**: start each step's message with one, a present-tense verb phrase of at most 70 characters saying what is happening (*"Running the build"*, *"Opening the test drive"*), or a short finding (*"Next.js 16, pnpm, Prisma on SQLite. No hosting found."*). impeccable_progress refuses a line that narrates like an assistant: write *"Reading the deploy workflows"*, not *"I'm trying to work out how the app deploys."* Detail belongs in the report.
-- **Tasks**: after each task, call impeccable_progress with the whole list. Titles are short noun phrases the person recognizes, the same every run where they fit: Read the repository, Apps (on a repository with several apps), Install and build, Preview method, Preview workflow, Sign-in, Test drive, Setup pull request. The list carries only what this run does: add a task when its case starts, never before, and leave off a task no case of this run takes, such as Preview workflow and Setup pull request where a host builds the previews (impeccable_progress refuses them once its previews are the method). Mark a task completed only once its result is saved, and a task completed stays so: Preview method once a method is saved, so where the test drive's preview is what proves the method (a host's previews with no pull request yet), it waits as pending while Test drive is in progress and is completed with the save. Mark a task skipped only when the person skipped it, and failed only when it was tried and failed. One task is in progress at a time, and every status line is the detail of that task (*"Installing with pnpm"* while Install and build is in progress); impeccable_progress refuses a status line about another task.
+- **Tasks**: after each task, call impeccable_progress with the whole list. Titles are short noun phrases the person recognizes, the same every run where they fit: Read the repository, Set up monorepo apps (on a repository with several apps), Install and build, Preview method, Preview workflow, Sign-in, Test drive, Setup pull request. The list carries only what this run does: add a task when its case starts, never before, and leave off a task no case of this run takes, such as Preview workflow and Setup pull request where a host builds the previews (impeccable_progress refuses them once its previews are the method). Mark a task completed only once its result is saved, and a task completed stays so: Preview method once a method is saved, so where the test drive's preview is what proves the method (a host's previews with no pull request yet), it waits as pending while Test drive is in progress and is completed with the save. Mark a task skipped only when the person skipped it, and failed only when it was tried and failed. One task is in progress at a time, and every status line is the detail of that task (*"Installing with pnpm"* while Install and build is in progress); impeccable_progress refuses a status line about another task.
 - **Questions**: one sentence, at most one hint line, and a title that names the subject.
 
 ## The report
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ impeccable_report ends the run: no tool or model call works after it, so call it
 ## What was skipped, and why
 [ends with the "Not part of this setup" line]
 ## What is not verified
-[everything you did not see working]
+[each part of the setup you did not see working: a preview, a proof, a check, a sign-in, a secret. Not what a page shows, such as a README's manual check of a page's content or data: the review renders the page]
 ## Before you merge
 \`\`\`
 

package/dist/sandbox.js

@@ -617,10 +617,9 @@ export async function startSandbox(o) {
             }
         },
     };
-    const proven = "the preview job on the pull request proves a static site's build instead";
     return {
         warning: off && `${off[0].toUpperCase()}${off.slice(1)}, so the setup's commands run without a sandbox, with all your access.`,
-        noPreview: off ? `The local preview check, which needs a sandbox of its own, does not run either; ${proven}.` : platform === 'linux' ? `On Linux bubblewrap keeps the app from the local preview check, so the check does not run here; ${proven}.` : undefined,
+        noPreview: off ? `The local preview check, which needs a sandbox of its own, does not run either.` : platform === 'linux' ? `On Linux bubblewrap keeps the app from the local preview check, so the check does not run here.` : undefined,
         shell,
         finish: () => watched.settle(),
         preview(folder) {